Re: Not everThe throughput of any data flow is a fair share of the capacity of the bottleneck link. Since a fair share the bottleneck link between you and the Speedtest server is >15 Mb/s, and the bottleneck link between you and Amazon Prime is >10 Mb/s, that means that the bottleneck link is not being shared with at least Speedtest and Amazon Prime. In fact, it is the peeriing link between AT&T and Netflix. The performance decline is a textbook example of a load-throughput curve: add more traffic to a link, and it congests. Amazon, unlike Netflix, has paid peering with AT&T, and orders more peering links whenever they start to congest.
Re: Curious...KBode, I'd like to see if I can confirm with you your understanding of the issue.
Tier 1s don't pay for interconnect, they simply turn up more connections between each other alternating the connection fee at designated interconnect facilities.
Cogent, has gain huge amounts of CDN content, including those that house Netflix, other Tier 1s don't deploy CDN caches like smaller ISPs because CDNs and content providers come to them for direct access.
Cogent decides that since its generating most of the traffic out, it shouldn't have to pay the connection fee anymore and if other carriers want more they can pay for it. Of course, other Tier 1s refuse.
Thus, congestion starts to build up between the Tier 1s and in particular Netflix suffers.
Comcast and Netflix agree to a fee where Netflix gains direct access to their customers (not sure if by cache clusters or some other direct access). Cogent is the loser in this arrangement and Netflix may see higher prices in the future.
Everyone expects Netflix and Vz to make a similar agreement.
(Speculating) --> Something goes wrong with the deal, and Netflix is doing Netflix way of doing things. And Vz is doing Vz ways of doing things.
Re: Not everIf you are using Amazon Prime for the same type of content as Netflix, and Amazon Prime download is an order of magnitude higher, the issue could be either (a) Netflix servers and network setup, (b) the ISP capping bandwidth for Netflix, (c) a combination of (a) and (b), or (d) some other reason. And so far, Netflix hasn't posted its "your ISP sucks" message to U-Verse users (at least it hasn't been reported). From your example, I'd say the bigger issue is signing up (and paying for) 25MB service and getting only 15.
Re: Not everNot sure how nasty this insinuation is. I have u-verse (25Mbps, measured at about 15Mbps using Speedtest). Until about 5 months ago, my Netflix service was pretty good, roughly 3Mbps in peak hours. Nowadays, I get about 0.7 Mbps on Netflix. I have not seen anything higher than about 1.1 Mbps in a long time. On the other hand, Amazon Prime is consistently over 10Mbps. Tell me ATT isn't messing with my Netflix. I wouldn't put it past Verizon to be doing the same.
Yeah, it could be the Netflix server farm, but I doubt it. Not for this long, consistently.
Re: Not everNot sure how nasty this insinuation is. I have u-verse (25Mbps, measured at about 15Mbps using Speedtest). Until about 5 months ago, my Netflix service was pretty good, roughly 3Mbps in peak hours. Nowadays, I get about 0.7 Mbps on Netflix. I have not seen anything higher than about 1.1 Mbps in a long time. On the other hand, Amazon Prime is consistently over 10Mbps. Tell me ATT isn't messing with my Netflix. I wouldn't put it past Verizon to be doing the same.
Yeah, it could be the Netflix server farm, but I doubt it. Not for this long, consistently.
Re: Curious@KBode, I think you have the right focus on transparency. That should determine the "reality" of whether there truly is a technical limitation affecting the Netflix delivery or not. Plus, that would go a long way in settling the battle at large - whether it is truly legal or PR.
Re: CuriousThough in some legal aspects "corporations are people" (I could go on a rant about that idea, but this isn't the place), I think any attempt by Verizon to sue would stretch this concept a bit far. Also, though I'm no lawyer and the rules may have changed, I believe truth is a defense in this matter.
But it's also important that Verizon defend itself in the court of public opinion, regardless ot the legality (or lack thereof) of the company's response to Netflix.
No sympathy for Netflix on this one.
Tier 1s don't pay for interconnect, they simply turn up more connections between each other alternating the connection fee at designated interconnect facilities.
Cogent, has gain huge amounts of CDN content, including those that house Netflix, other Tier 1s don't deploy CDN caches like smaller ISPs because CDNs and content providers come to them for direct access.
Cogent decides that since its generating most of the traffic out, it shouldn't have to pay the connection fee anymore and if other carriers want more they can pay for it. Of course, other Tier 1s refuse.
Thus, congestion starts to build up between the Tier 1s and in particular Netflix suffers.
Comcast and Netflix agree to a fee where Netflix gains direct access to their customers (not sure if by cache clusters or some other direct access). Cogent is the loser in this arrangement and Netflix may see higher prices in the future.
Everyone expects Netflix and Vz to make a similar agreement.
(Speculating) --> Something goes wrong with the deal, and Netflix is doing Netflix way of doing things. And Vz is doing Vz ways of doing things.
Close?
Yeah, it could be the Netflix server farm, but I doubt it. Not for this long, consistently.
-desi
Yeah, it could be the Netflix server farm, but I doubt it. Not for this long, consistently.
-desi
But it's also important that Verizon defend itself in the court of public opinion, regardless ot the legality (or lack thereof) of the company's response to Netflix.